Two years after Arizona passed a controversial
immigration-enforcement law that, among other things, makes it a state
crime to be in the country illegally, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear
arguments Wednesday for and against the law. Several other states, including
Texas, that have passed — or have attempted to pass — similar
legislation are certain to keep a close eye on the proceedings.

Analysts
say that a decision will probably be rendered in June, which would
leave ample time for lawmakers in Texas to mull over if or how they
would attempt to write legislation aimed at curbing illegal immigration
before the next legislative session convenes in January. Several dozen
bills — including measures making it a state crime to knowingly hire an
illegal immigrant (except those hired for domestic services) and broadening the immigration-enforcement authority of local law enforcement — were filed during the 2011 session. But none passed.

The
court will hear arguments on the provisions that were blocked by a
federal district court after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070.
They include a requirement that police officers attempt to determine the
immigration status of a person detained if they suspect the person is
in the country illegally; a provision that makes it a crime if an
immigrant fails to carry proof of legal status; and a provision that
makes it a crime for an unauthorized immigrant to work, apply for work
or solicit work, which the Immigration Policy Center,
a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, says includes “a gesture or a nod,
indicating that a person is willing to be employed.” The final
provision that will be debated allows officers to arrest immigrants
without a warrant if probable cause that they have committed a
deportable offense exists. The court will ultimately be tasked with
determining whether federal laws pre-empt those state ordinances.

Supreme
Court Justice Elena Kagan will not hear the oral arguments because of
her former position as the U.S. solicitor general in President Obama’s
administration. That means the remaining eight justices could split
evenly and fail to reach a majority decision. The policy center explains
that if that happens, the district court’s ruling would stand and no
opinion would be issued. The lower courts could continue to debate
similar laws, however, unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear another
case and make a ruling on it.

If the court rules against Arizona’s
law, a permanent injunction will probably be issued. The state of
Arizona, however, may modify its law to comply with the court’s
decision. If the court upholds the law and lifts the injunction, the
policy center says, individuals could still file legal challenges to
other parts of the law based on how they are implemented.

Some Texas lawmakers and stakeholders are not waiting
on the court’s decision to make their views on the issue known. On the
eve of oral arguments, several offices issued statements.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith,
R-San Antonio, chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, issued a
statement in support of the bill. He said the “Obama administration is
wrong to sue the State of Arizona.”

“The Constitution gives
Congress the authority and responsibility to establish a uniform
immigration policy for the nation," he said. "However, if Congress does
not pre-empt states from enacting their own immigration laws, they can
assist with federal enforcement and pass laws that are not inconsistent
with federal law. That’s precisely what Arizona has done."

Meanwhile,
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus issued a statement admonishing the
law, arguing that the bill opens up Latinos to racial profiling.

“Since
its passage, SB1070 has legalized profiling of Latinos, prevented local
police from doing their jobs by turning them into immigration agents,
and codified harassment of families and communities,” said U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio, the caucus chairman.

He
added that the law “does not represent the values on which our country
was founded. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will seize the opportunity to
restore justice for the well-being of all our communities by overturning
SB1070.”

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you indepedent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.